DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on April 29, 2026.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 21-27 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 28-34 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 35-40 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 21, 28 and 35: The limitation “attributing an event, associated with the event tracking message, to the first feature treatment, conditioned on the event occurring: after application of the first feature treatment to the configurable application; prior to any application of a different feature treatment to the configurable application that does not satisfy the first rule; and prior to any change to the first rule that would cause the feature treatment to no longer satisfy the first rule”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an event tracking message and mentally attribute, with or without the use of pen and paper, an event, associated with the event tracking message, to a first feature treatment, conditioned on the event occurring: after application of the first feature treatment to the configurable application; prior to any application of a different feature treatment to the configurable application that does not satisfy the first rule; and prior to any change to the first rule that would cause the feature treatment to no longer satisfy the first rule.
Therefore, Yes, claims 21, 28 and 35 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 21, 28 and 35: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a server computer system”, “a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configure to:…” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium, having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations…” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 21, 28 and 35 recite the following additional elements – and “receiving, by a server computer system, an event tracking message associated with a first system, wherein the event tracking message is transmitted from a software development kit (SDK) or an application programming interface (API) of the first system”, “receiving a first rule, specified by the second system, including the second system identifier” and “applying the first feature treatment, specified by the second system, that satisfies the first rule and identifies the first system, by transmitting the first feature treatment to the SDK or API of the first system for application during execution of the configurable application, to selectively change a first feature of the configurable application executing on the first system in real time” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claims 21, 28 and 35 recite the following additional elements – “the event tracking message including: a first system identifier that identifies the first system, a second system identifier that identifies a second system, and a timestamp” and “the first rule: identifying the first system, and defining how the first system is identified during an experiment, the experiment applying a first feature treatment to a configurable application executing on the first system” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 21, 28 and 35 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 21, 28 and 35: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 21, 28 and 35 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 22, 29 and 36, they recite additional element of “wherein the timestamp further indicates that the event occurred at a time before a second buffer period of time after an end time of the experiment” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claims 22, 29 and 36 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 22, 29 and 36 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 22, 29 and 36 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 23, 30 and 37, they recite additional element of “receiving a second rule, specified by the second system, including the second system identifier” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 23, 30 and 37 recite additional element of “applying the second feature treatment, specified by the second system, to the configurable application executing on the first system” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claims 23, 30 and 37 recite additional element of “the second rule: identifying the first system, and defining how the first system is identified during the experiment, the experiment applying a second feature treatment to the configurable application executing on the first system”, “the second feature treatment: satisfying the second rule identifying the first system, and configuring a second feature of the configurable application” and “wherein the timestamp further indicates that the event occurred at a time after the application of the second feature treatment to the configurable application” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Further, claims 23, 30 and 37 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more claims 23, 30 and 37 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 23, 30 and 37 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 24, 31 and 38, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “excluding the event tracking message from attribution to the first feature treatment, in response to determining that, during the experiment, the event tracking message was received after application of a second feature treatment to the configurable application, the second feature treatment not satisfying the first rule” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an event tracking message, just as in the independent claims above, mentally exclude, with or without the use of pen and paper, the event tracking message from attribution to the first feature treatment, in response to determining that, during the experiment, the event tracking message was received after application of a second feature treatment to the configurable application, the second feature treatment not satisfying the first rule. Further, claims 24, 31 and 38 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 24, 31 and 38 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 24, 31 and 38 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 25, 32 and 39, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “excluding the event tracking message from attribution to the first feature treatment, in response to determining that, during the experiment, the event tracking message was received after a change to the first rule was applied to the configurable application, the first feature treatment not satisfying the change to the first rule” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an event tracking message, just as in the independent claims above, mentally exclude, with or without the use of pen and paper, the event tracking message from attribution to the first feature treatment, in response to determining that, during the experiment, the event tracking message was received after a change to the first rule was applied to the configurable application, the first feature treatment not satisfying the change to the first rule. Further, claims 25, 32 and 39 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 25, 32 and 39 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 25, 32 and 39 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 26, 33 and 40, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “assigning a first feature version to the first feature treatment” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a first feature treatment, just as in the independent claims above, mentally assign, with or without the use of pen and paper, a first feature version to the first feature treatment. Further, claims 26, 33 and 40 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “assigning a second feature version to the first feature treatment” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a first feature treatment, just as in the independent claims above, mentally assign, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second feature version to the first feature treatment. Further still, claims 26, 33 and 40 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “analyzing a sample set of events associated with at least one of the first feature version or the second feature version” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a sample set of events, just as in the independent claims above, mentally analyze, with or without the use of pen and paper, the sample set of events associated with at least one of the first feature version or the second feature version. Further still, claims 26, 33 and 40 recite additional element of “in response to deploying a new version of the configurable application” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claims 26, 33 and 40 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 26, 33 and 40 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 26, 33 and 40 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 27 and 34, they recite additional element of “wherein the event tracking message is generated on a second system other than the first system” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claims 27 and 34 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more claims 27 and 34 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 27 and 34 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 21-40 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed April6, with respect to the §112 rejection of claims 21-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §112 rejection of claims 21-40 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the §101 rejection filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action asserts that the limitation "attributing an event ... to the first
feature treatment" is a mental process. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As amended, claim 21 does not recite a mere mental evaluation or labeling of data. The claim requires applying the first feature treatment by transmitting the first feature treatment to an SDK or API of the first system for application during execution of the configurable application. The claim further requires attributing the event to the first feature treatment conditioned on the event occurring within a time period after application of the first feature treatment and prior to subsequent feature treatment or rule changes. These features require enforcing attribution based on application of feature treatments and changes to rules across multiple systems (e.g., across the server computer system and the first and second systems). Such operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind, particularly where events are generated via SDK/API communications and feature treatments are applied during execution of software applications. Accordingly, the amended claims do not recite a mental process.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection to claim 21 above, the Examiner did not analyze “applying the first feature treatment” under Step 2A, Prong 1 for being part of the mental process. This limitation was analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B for being an additional element. As for the limitation of “attributing an event…”, this limitation was analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 as being part of the mental process. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an event tracking message and mentally attribute, with or without the use of pen and paper, an event, associated with the event tracking message, to a first feature treatment, conditioned on the event occurring: after application of the first feature treatment to the configurable application; prior to any application of a different feature treatment to the configurable application that does not satisfy the first rule; and prior to any change to the first rule that would cause the feature treatment to no longer satisfy the first rule. The claim does provide detail on what it means to “attribute” an event. A person could mentally or with the aid of pen and paper “attribute” (i.e. link or map) an event to a first feature treatment based on various information.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that any feature could be characterized as reciting a
judicial exception, the claims, as amended, integrate any such exception into a practical application. The Office Action characterizes the additional features as generic components, insignificant data gathering, or field of use limitations. However, the amended claims do not merely analyze or evaluate data, but instead use the recited attribution to control operation of a computer system. In particular, the claims recite transmitting feature treatment definitions from a server computer system to an SDK or API of a client system for application during execution of a configurable application, thereby enabling runtime configuration of application features. The Specification expressly discloses that configurable applications "may be configured at run time ... to control how one or more features are treated during execution of the application," including selectively enabling, disabling, or modifying application features and user interface elements. See, Specification at [0021]-[0022]. The claims further recite attributing an event conditioned on the event occurring within a time period defined by application of the first feature treatment and prior to subsequent feature treatment or rule changes. This corresponds to the Specification's disclosure of associating events with applied feature treatments and controlling application behavior based on those associations. See, Specification at [0034]. In this manner, the claimed attribution is used to control operation of the configurable application based on events occurring during execution. Thus, the claimed attribution is used to enforce system state constraints and to control operation of the configurable application in a distributed computing environment (e.g., across the server computer system and the first system). The claimed attribution features define how the claimed functionality is achieved and impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea, rather than merely reciting a result or
instruction to "apply it."
The August 4, 2025 Memorandum further cautions against oversimplifying claim
features or expanding the "apply it" consideration. The amended claims recite particular steps that define a specific way of achieving the desired outcome, including coordinated interaction between a server system and SDK/API components and enforcement of attribution based on application of feature treatments and changes to rules during execution. The claims therefore do not merely recite the idea of a solution or outcome, but rather recite a particular way to achieve that outcome and improve operation of computer systems by enabling runtime configuration and control of application behavior in a distributed environment (e.g., across the server computer system and the first system).
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection to claim 21 above, the Examiner has analyzed the claim limitation of “by transmitting the first feature treatment to an SDK or API of the first system for application during execution of a configurable application” under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. This limitation is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Further, Applicant argues that “the claimed attribution is used to control operation of the configurable application based on events occurring during execution” and “the claimed attribution is used to enforce system state constraints and to control operation of the configurable application in a distributed computing environment (e.g., across the server computer system and the first system).” However, the current claim language does not recite any of these features. The claims do not recite any limitations that “use” the attributed event to perform any further processing.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action further asserts that the claims do not recite significantly more
than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims recite a specific combination of features, including transmitting feature treatment definitions to an SDK/API for execution-time application, modifying application behavior during execution based on server-defined rules, and performing attribution conditioned on temporal constraints and on application of feature treatments and changes to rules. This combination implements a coordinated control and attribution mechanism across distributed systems and is not merely the use of a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The Office has not provided evidence that this specific combination of features is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Thus, Claim 21 is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claims 28 and 35 are
also directed to patent eligible subject matter for similar reasons as that of Claim 21.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection to claim 21 above, the Examiner has analyzed each and every limitation under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2 and/or Step 2B. Specifically, the limitation of “attributing an event…” was not analyzed as an additional element and thus, not analyzed under Step 2B. Therefore, this limitation cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations of “receiving… an event tracking message…”, “receiving a first rule” and “applying the first feature treatment” were analyzed under Step 2B. However, these limitations merely recite insignificant data gathering activity which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Dependent claims are also directed to patent eligible subject matter by virtue of their dependency in addition to their own patent eligible subject matter. As such, withdrawal of the rejection, under 35 USC § 101, with respect to Claims 21-40 is respectfully solicited.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see response to arguments above with respect to claim 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LANNY N UNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights